Vincent Damphouse to blame

[LePoche69]

Sorry but the easy stuff was saying 45M. That would have put a positive spin on the whole meeting and urgency to cross the t's and dot the i's. At worst they disagree on the number and call it a day. Now we'll just never know if there was a deal to be made, since they started nit-picking on everything else first.

me2 wrote : are either side going to want to walk away over the little stuff? Crack the cap, and the rest flows from there.

I understand your views, but I disgree. To me "all the other issues" are far from "little stuff" and I don't consider that it is "nit-picking". A guy working for owners or a guy working for a union who would say that "the other issues are just small stuff" would be fire, beleive me. A sum of little things IS a big thing.

Put yourself in the players' position. Imagine that secretly, you came to the conclusion that you could sign the CBA for a 45 hardcap. Then fine! But in a nego, you can't say it loud. First, you got to be carefull to the other issues because that 45 millions could become a joke if all the other issues are against you. I think that it is exactly what happened. And I dont think as you both seems (I said "seems") to think that contracts buyouts, entry level contractcs, free agent age and all this stuff is "little thing". It could make a hell of a difference over a career.

 

[me2]

I understand your views, but I disgree. To me "all the other issues" are far from "little stuff" and I don't consider that it is "nit-picking". A guy working for owners or a guy working for a union who would say that "the other issues are just small stuff" would be fire, beleive me. A sum of little things IS a big thing.

Put yourself in the players' position. Imagine that secretly, you came to the conclusion that you could sign the CBA for a 45 hardcap. Then fine! But in a nego, you can't say it loud.

Of course you can. Maybe you don't say it in July last year, but now you do. The time for pissing around and playing mind games is long gone. Both sides have reached a point where they are thinking the same number. SAY IT! If neither side says it then it never gets done.

If the NHLPA comes out and says "We will take a $45m cap" then its the NHL that kills the meeting if it won't take the clauses the NHLPA wants. They get to make the NHL the bad guys.

First, you got to be carefull to the other issues because that 45 millions could become a joke if all the other issues are against you. I think that it is exactly what happened. And I dont think as you both seems (I said "seems") to think that contracts buyouts, entry level contractcs, free agent age and all this stuff is "little thing". It could make a hell of a difference over a career.

The cap number is by far the biggest deal breaker. Relative to the cap number the other stuff is minor.

Guaranteed contracts: both sides had them in the last CBA. Both sides have them in the last offers.

Draft age: doesn't seem to be an issue for either side. NHL has floated going to 28, NHLPA doesn't seem to care if it stays at 21.

Arbitration: This a stumbling block, but the NHLs mutual arbitration is fair both sides.

Qualifying offers: NHLPA could get a win here.

Salary floor: the NHL can't really set one without knowing the damage from the lockout. They could set it at $25m, but if revenue falls $15m/teams next year they'd have to come down to $10m. Pointless. Maybe if the NHLPA was talking cap back in September when the NHL was a $2.1B business a floor made sense. Those days are pretty much gone.

Salary rollback: The salary rollback favours the NHLPA more than the NHL. The last thing the NHLPA wants is the rich teams having their cap already taken by exisiting contracts and teams like Nashville and Calgary picking up free agents like Pronger for $3m/y. That blow away bargaining power of all of the RFAs.



If the NHLPA opened with a cap, then NHLPA could leverage clauses. They won't get a floor they want, but they might get wins on things like qualifying offers. But both sides will want to finish the deal and would likely give in on issues that they wouldn't without the cap being sorted.

 

[J-D]

Draft age: doesn't seem to be an issue for either side. NHL has floated going to 28, NHLPA doesn't seem to care if it stays at 21.

Huh? What are you talking about.

 

[Russian Fan]

For people here who CRITICIZE Vincent Damphousse, let me say this : THE GUY is A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS !!!

You'Re all talking about players who don't anything about the business but Damphousse own a part of a beautiful SPA-RESORT in MONT-TREMBLANT called LE SCANDIVE http://www.scandinave.com/eng/home.html

He knows what it takes to be in the executive side of the PA.

The guy will be crucify because he didn't want to waste anytime & MOSTLY ANY HOPE to agree on a cap but everything would crash on the (QO, UFA, ENTRY LEVEL & ON....)

The guy did his job & because most of you see him as the vilain , you can't see that he's qualified.

 

[LePoche69]

Garanteed contracts are in both proposition, but they don't have the same buyouts rate. That's a huge difference.

And by the way, we only read the small point forms of the propositions. There is a lot more details in a real offer, a lot more picky. That's why they all take times to explain each point to the other. It's not as simple as it looks in the point forms.

Anyway, I'm not arguing that the cap is the main thing. It is, no doubt. But to me, the players had an idea of what could be their counter offer, but they had to see all the other points before setting it to say 44, 45, 46 or 47, for example. I honnestly think that it was just part of nego, plain and simple. Now they got a big powow in which they'll be able to explain each point to the players, and I'm sure they'll vote on a number for the cap. Then they'll come with an offer. I bet on 47 Millions hard cap.

(Here, it's only my perception of all this):
Both parties talked about the cancellation of the season two years ago. The NHLPA suggest to his players to put money on the side because of this. Same with the owners. That's a fact, we all know this. They both knew that the season would be cancelled. They just used the deadline to see what the other look like with his pants down. It works. They now know that the league could live without linkage and that the players could live with a cap. Now, it's just the second part of the nego. They start at 52M vs 40M. Then it was 49M vs 42.5. Then they held a big meeting to talk about other issues. To me, it means that they know that the next cap number could be the good one. To be sure, they have to talk about the other issues. All the rest is just normal nego stuff where both parties try to fool the other in the medias. I think everything is fine. My prediction is that they're gonna lose something between the first month of training camp and the first month of the season, next year. And then they'll sign. I don't buy all that miscalculation stuff or the fact that the league was surprise, or the fact that the players can't imagnie how the cancellation is gonna cost them, blablabla. I don't buy it. It's their job to evaluate all the scenarios. It have been done. They both have a really good idea about all the effects it's gonna have.

 

[shveik]

I am with LePoche and Larionov on this. The disagreement over the small things shows just how far apart the NHL and NHLPA really are. The fact that they immediately started to discuss the small things meant that the agreement on the cap was already de-facto in place. They all knew that they'd meet somewhere in the middle, and it would not kill the deal if it went to 44 or 46 millions. The cap did not kill the deal, the "small" things did, so apparently they were more important at that point than the cap.

 

[me2]

Huh? What are you talking about.

Meant UFA age.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Like I've said in other threads, the only guy I can really bash on the player's side is Damphousse. I have never met anyone as hollow as he is. He's the dumbest one-liner guy I've seen.

Oh well... I'll stop there, cause as you can see I don't like him one bit. People that have their mind set and will never change my mind even if they're proven totally wrong (like the people saying the earth was flat) are the only people I have a hard time to tolerate.

 

[mr gib]

I am with LePoche and Larionov on this. The disagreement over the small things shows just how far apart the NHL and NHLPA really are. The fact that they immediately started to discuss the small things meant that the agreement on the cap was already de-facto in place. They all knew that they'd meet somewhere in the middle, and it would not kill the deal if it went to 44 or 46 millions. The cap did not kill the deal, the "small" things did, so apparently they were more important at that point than the cap.

cause the league kept farting around taking things back - bettman did not want to play this year - hello !!!!

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

The union and league are much more likely to fight over the extra clauses if the cap is undecided. Lets face it, if the NHL and the NHLPA reach a deal on the cap going up over 6 years (ie $42.5m, 42.5m, 43m, 43.5m, 44m, 45m), are either side going to want to walk away over the little stuff? Crack the cap, and the rest flows from there.


Damphousse was out to kill the negotiations from the start IMHO. He was turning molehills into mountains to stop the negotiations ever getting to the cap.

The issues though is that we don't know that the players were looking for the relatively minor increases your estimating.

The thing that surprised me is that Linden and Saskin both seemed really surprised by the owners positions on the "details". The PA had at least 3 days to understand what the owners were offering, and it seems that they suckered the owners back to the negotiating table and pulled a bait and switch. The owners thought they were close, so Wayne & Mario got involved, and then the PA played like they were surprised by the details of the deal.

IMO, the details are a hell of a lot more important than the $ difference in the top end cap. The players would of been much smarter to accept the $42.5M cap, if there were some minor changes made, like a salary floor.

 

[Beukeboom Fan]

cause the league kept farting around taking things back - bettman did not want to play this year - hello !!!!

I disagree 100%. I think that Bettman was desperate to reach an agreement. I think the players were somewhat taking a page from the owners book by assuming that the factors in their favor would carry forward from the league's linkage offer, when that wasn't the case. The owners felt that without linkage, they couldn't include a salary floor, or an "inflator" in the cap number. Both very reasonable positions IMO.

The players position seems to be that that felt they were dealing from a position of strength, which just wasn't the case. Either that, or they had no intention of reaching a deal on Saturday, and were doing it for the PR impact and to hopefully solidify the players behind the union. They could pull the "We went back and tried to uncancel the season, but Bettman's wants to break the union! He doesn't care about hockey - after all, he's from the US and worked in the NBA league offices! What could he possibly know about running a sports league!"

 

[Munchausen]

I understand your views, but I disgree. To me "all the other issues" are far from "little stuff" and I don't consider that it is "nit-picking". A guy working for owners or a guy working for a union who would say that "the other issues are just small stuff" would be fire, beleive me. A sum of little things IS a big thing.

Put yourself in the players' position. Imagine that secretly, you came to the conclusion that you could sign the CBA for a 45 hardcap. Then fine! But in a nego, you can't say it loud. First, you got to be carefull to the other issues because that 45 millions could become a joke if all the other issues are against you. I think that it is exactly what happened. And I dont think as you both seems (I said "seems") to think that contracts buyouts, entry level contractcs, free agent age and all this stuff is "little thing". It could make a hell of a difference over a career.

I wouldn't say they're small things, in fact they are key stuff, since arbitration and rookie salaries play a huge part in the old inflationary system. But what was the deal killer that sent the season into oblivion? The cap number. If the PA comes in, officially agrees on a cap number close to the 42.5M the owners want, they put all the pressure on the league to close the deal. If they fail, the bad guys become the NHL, since the PA has caved on the cap number. That gives them all the leverage to negotiate the underlying issues to their advantage. Instead, they come out as even worse than before in the public's eye, the side that came into the meeting to play hardball and didn't want to make concessions on anything, hense the waste of time of this meeting. Negotiating at its worst if you ask me.

 

[SENSible1*]

cause the league kept farting around taking things back - bettman did not want to play this year - hello !!!!

Grab a clue.

The PA came into the meeting with the ridiculous expectation of working off their framework on ALL issues. Saskin refered to their Dec. 09th proposal, as if it was the established baseline.

Sorry boys, when you have the weak hand, you don't get to set the framework.

 

[Russian Fan]

Grab a clue.

The PA came into the meeting with the ridiculous expectation of working off their framework on ALL issues. Saskin refered to their Dec. 09th proposal, as if it was the established baseline.

Sorry boys, when you have the weak hand, you don't get to set the framework.

I'm sorry but not because the owners decide to have a hard stance, the other side should say ''Well if you tell us so, then where do we signed ?''

I know I'm talking to a deaf pro-owner guy here but the NHLPA did it right to see if it was ok before signing a CBA with the right CAP #'s.

You come here & claim the PA's want to dictate the framework when in fact it's the complete opposite. PA's ask to negotiate the framework.

Did they ask to get the SAME CBA as the last year ? NO

They still want a part where they feel they have a ''not so bad deal''.

The crap i'm tired of hearing is the NHL/Owners/Bettman wanting a ''PARTNERSHIP'' with the players, this is complete manipulation of what the fans want to hear.

 

[SENSible1*]

I'm sorry but not because the owners decide to have a hard stance, the other side should say ''Well if you tell us so, then where do we signed ?''

I know I'm talking to a deaf pro-owner guy here but the NHLPA did it right to see if it was ok before signing a CBA with the right CAP #'s.

You come here & claim the PA's want to dictate the framework when in fact it's the complete opposite. PA's ask to negotiate the framework.

Did they ask to get the SAME CBA as the last year ? NO

They still want a part where they feel they have a ''not so bad deal''.

The crap i'm tired of hearing is the NHL/Owners/Bettman wanting a ''PARTNERSHIP'' with the players, this is complete manipulation of what the fans want to hear.

Saskin went on record after the meeting bleating about the fact that the NHL was working off their framework and not the PA's Dec 09th proposal.

You, and the PA, are under the mistaken impression that this is a negotiation between equal parties. This shows a blatant misunderstanding on the PA's part as to the leverage in this situation.

The PA will be forced to grovel or kill their best source of income.

Time to take the humble pill boys.

 

[Russian Fan]

Saskin went on record after the meeting bleating about the fact that the NHL was working off their framework and not the PA's Dec 09th proposal.

You, and the PA, are under the mistaken impression that this is a negotiation between equal parties. This shows a blatant misunderstanding on the PA's part as to the leverage in this situation.

The PA will be forced to grovel or kill their best source of income.

Time to take the humble pill boys.

Who is misunderstanding who ? just because 90% of this board thinks the owners got ALL the leverage, the PA got to cave.

I'm sorry but is there something SIGN YET ? nope ! players are still playing hockey somewhere, owners see their league crumbling by losing sponsorship, franchise value & all.

The humble pill like you said need to be taken on both sides. Once the owners will realize they actually WON & all they is to work a good framework outside the cap number, we could see hockey in 05-06. If not it's all about the owners to lose everything because they prefer to go ALL IN in the last hand of poker instead of being happy with having 75% of the pot table.

 

[LePoche69]

Like I've said in other threads, the only guy I can really bash on the player's side is Damphousse. I have never met anyone as hollow as he is. He's the dumbest one-liner guy I've seen.

Oh well... I'll stop there, cause as you can see I don't like him one bit. People that have their mind set and will never change my mind even if they're proven totally wrong (like the people saying the earth was flat) are the only people I have a hard time to tolerate.

Interesting ironic post... There even is a lapsus in it. Really funny.

 

[SENSible1*]

Who is misunderstanding who ? just because 90% of this board thinks the owners got ALL the leverage, the PA got to cave.

I'm sorry but is there something SIGN YET ? nope ! players are still playing hockey somewhere, owners see their league crumbling by losing sponsorship, franchise value & all.

The humble pill like you said need to be taken on both sides. Once the owners will realize they actually WON & all they is to work a good framework outside the cap number, we could see hockey in 05-06. If not it's all about the owners to lose everything because they prefer to go ALL IN in the last hand of poker instead of being happy with having 75% of the pot table.

It has nothing to do with what 90% of this board thinks and everything to do with the inevitable outcome.

The humble pie could have been shared, but the PA's actions have ensured that the owners will take nothing but a complete victory.

The PA hasn't learned from history. The owners have.

The two most compliant PA's in the big 4 are in the sports where the owners played hard ball. The PA had to make it in the owners best interests not to play hardball by settling early in exchange for some leeway on smaller issues. Now that they have gone down this path, no other solution will satisfy the owners.

 

[SuperUnknown]

Interesting ironic post... There even is a lapsus in it. Really funny.

Heh... I'm not saying this about any other PA member. But Damphousse is a guy I met years ago and after talking with him I told myself "The NHL and the PA are in deep s*** with this guy carrying an important NHLPA role". Why? Because he was dead set that the owners were 100% responsible, that they HAD to pay, etc. He would never acknowledge that the system had things built in to make it inflationnary. From what I've read up until now, he's still the same old guy I met back then, he hasn't changed a iota.

On the other hand, how can you explain that I usually defend unions (like in Quebec, I stood up on these boards for the SAQ employees) but in this case I don't? As well, I'd like to see the NHLPA get the best deal they can. I don't want to see them crushed. However, I can't help it if their own actions are leading them down the path where they lose and lose more. I've been in unions before and I would have never accepted that from my leadership. So here I stand thinking the players (on the whole, not individually) are stupid for not taking a deal that would have made them MORE money, while making the fans happy.

 

[Wetcoaster]

It was not just Damphousse according to Gretzky:

Also Gretzky stated clearly that HE took both Trevor Linden and Vincent Damphousse aside to speak with them at the beginning of the meeting and that was when he realized that the NHLPA had a number of points of clarification to raise regarding the NHL offer before the issue of the cap was discussed. It was not just the cap level and it was not just Damphousse saying this. I am sure this was shock to him, particularly if Bettman had led him to believe otherwise.

"When the meeting began," Gretzky said, "I took Trevor and Vincent aside and asked how they thought we could bridge the gap between $42.5-million and $49-million to make it work. They told me they weren't prepared to talk about a hard cap number until the other issues like arbitration, qualifiers and entry level were done."

 

[mr gib]

Grab a clue.

The PA came into the meeting with the ridiculous expectation of working off their framework on ALL issues. Saskin refered to their Dec. 09th proposal, as if it was the established baseline.

Sorry boys, when you have the weak hand, you don't get to set the framework.

as far as i know it was not brought up to them before that the cap would stay the same for the duration of the new cba

 

[Ar-too]

It was not just Damphousse according to Gretzky:

Also Gretzky stated clearly that HE took both Trevor Linden and Vincent Damphousse aside to speak with them at the beginning of the meeting and that was when he realized that the NHLPA had a number of points of clarification to raise regarding the NHL offer before the issue of the cap was discussed. It was not just the cap level and it was not just Damphousse saying this. I am sure this was shock to him, particularly if Bettman had led him to believe otherwise.

This isn't logical. Gretzky has said that this wasn't the NHL's meeting, so why would Bettman lead him to believe anything? Everyone involved in this fiasco from the media's standpoint sourced a player.

 

[Digger12]

as far as i know it was not brought up to them before that the cap would stay the same for the duration of the new cba

Well, considering the players wanted a cap that wasn't linked to revenue...how could the union expect a cap that would do anything other than stay static?

But then the players come back demanding a cap that rises as revenues rise, but not to fall if revenues decline?

They should make up their minds, do they want linkage or not?

 

[SwisshockeyAcademy]

Someday we will all look back at this time and have a good laugh about it. Hopefully Michael Westbrook is around to share in the moment as he's generally good at such reflection.

 

[Drury_Sakic]

If the PA wanted the cap to rise, they should have set the hard cap at 42.5 mill, and then had variables to make it rise and fall above or back down to that level..

meaning..

for the first 2-3 seasons it likely would be at the 42.5 range, then if revenue rose in season 4, the next year the cap would rasie accordingly.....if for whatever reason revenue dropped down the next year, the cap would fall back, possibly to 42.5, but never below it..

PA gets a fair deal if the league hits another boom stage like it did in the early 90's they get rewarded(i.e. the players have motivation for working hard to promote the game) Player motivation results in a better game, and what I would hope to be larger profit for the owners.

That would have been fair in my book.